Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SOUTH PARKING LOT EXPANSION - SPAR - SPA130004 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board November21, 2013 Page 5 Public Input None Board Questions Lorson asked if his impression was correct — is Member Schneider's asking how the property gets subdivided in order for them to purchase just the northern portion. Schneider said his questions are: board materials received earlier this week talked about buying only 112 the property. Do we have a revised site plan and elevations? What are plans for landscaping? Lorson said that is the entire site plan and that it is the area on the north section of the parcel that's north of the irrigation ditch. Lorson said the site plan before you is not changing ---- only the amount of property being purchased from the church has changed. Member Schneider said his second question relates to the RL Zone District. Would a parking lot be considered a secondary use since there is no physical structure on that parcel? Lorson said since this process is governed by Colorado statutes, he'd defer to our attorney for that question. Eckman, the parking lot is considered accessory to the campus but it's not an issue for a Site Plan Advisory Review under Section 209. We're only directed to look at location, character, and extent. Eckman said the zoning code also does not apply since it's a statutory review. Member Hart asked the Chair if we could explain to the audience —both in chambers and at home what the board's limitations are under this process. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said should a public entity wish to construct a structure it has to go before the Planning & Zoning Board for a review as to location, character and extent. Eckman said the statute doesn't give us any more guidance than that. He said it does give a specific time limit. If it's not completed with a certain time, it will be deemed approved. Eckman said in the case of 'disapproval', the State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education can over -rule the decision by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. Member Hatfield made a motion to approve the Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review, #SPA 130004 and in support of his motion he adopts the findings, facts and conclusions in the staff report. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0. Project: Redtail Pond Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan, # PDP130030 Project Description: This is a request for the Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing located at an undeveloped parcel at 5046 Fossil Boulevard. The project includes 60 multi- family dwelling units with a proposed purpose to provide housing for adult men and women. The site is within the General Commercial District (C-G), and is also within boundaries of the Transit -Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD) and the South College Corridor Plan. Recommendation: Approval of Redtail Ponds Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan, PDP #130030, a determination of infeasibility as to the Block Requirement regarding block structure in Section 3.8.30(D)(1), and Modifications of Standard to Sections 3.8.30(D)(1) Block Structure, 3.10.3(A) Building Orientation and 3.10.4(C) Off -Street Parking. Planning & Zoning Board November 21, 2013 Page 4 and when it's not the board changes it to make it better. He said, once again, Eric Sutherland, person of interest, in the Foothills Redevelopment Major Amendment on the basis of LUC Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4. End of Public Input Applicant's Response Ms. White said they waive. Staff Response Levingston said no response Board questions Member Hart said he has a comment. He can appreciate Mr. Sutherland's concern from his point of view but he doesn't think it is relevant to any decision tonight. What we're required to do is to look at the LUC and determine what is being requested here is in compliance with that code. The financing of the operation is irrelevant. Board Discussion Member Hart made a motion the Planning and Zoning board approve the Foothills Redevelopment Phase 1, #FDP130040 subject to the condition: Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to provide financial security for the construction of the sidewalk from the northern portion of the Phase One College Avenue frontage south to East Monroe Drive, in accordance with Section 3.6.4 of the Land Use Code. in the staff report and this is based on the findings, facts, and conclusions in the staff report. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0. Member Heinz arrived late Project: Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review, #SPA 130004. Project Description: This is a request to develop a new 404 space surface parking lot on the property directly south of the existing Front Range Community College (FRCC), Larimer Campus. The parking lot is to be constructed in two phases: phase one will be 250 spaces to replace those lost with the development of a new building (Planning & Zoning will review the integrated Technology Building SPAR on December 19, 2013). Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Seth Lorson said Site Plan Advisory Reviews are required by state statute. Section 31-23- 209, C.R.S. provides that no public building shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the "location character and extent thereof' has been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff recommends approval. Applicant Presentation Bruce Walthers, Vice President of the Larimer Campus, said they are available for questions. Planning & Zoning Board November 21, 2013 Page 3 can we just ask questions. Chair Smith said we'll just ask that there be an abbreviated presentation since he thinks staff understands the issues raised by Member Schneider. Chair Smith asked for a presentation of the Foothills Redevelopment Major Amendment and Final Plan item. Project: Foothills Redevelopment Phase 1, Consolidated Major Amendment & Final Plan, #FDP130040 Project Description: This is a request for a consolidated Phase One Major Amendment (MJA) and Final Plan (FP) for the Foothills Redevelopment Phase One. The project is located east of South College Avenue and north of East Monroe Drive at 3400 South College Avenue. As proposed, the existing Tres Margaritas restaurant building will be removed and replaced with a 10,501square foot retail building. Recommendation: Approval of Foothills Redevelopment Phase One, Major Amendment and Final Plan #FDP130040. with one condition. Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence City Planner Courtney Levingston said this is a request for a consolidated Phase One Major Amendment (MJA) and Final Plan (FP) for the Foothills Redevelopment Phase One. The project is located east of South College Avenue and north of East Monroe Drive at 3400 South College Avenue. As proposed, the existing Tres Margaritas restaurant building will be removed and replaced with a 10,501square foot retail building. The Foothills Mall Redevelopment Phase One development area is 2.23 acres in size and will be located on the future Block 16 of the larger amended PDP and will replace a small portion of the previously approved Foothills Redevelopment Project Development Plan (February, 2013). The site is zoned General Commercial (C-G) and is located in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District. Applicant Presentation Caroline White, land use counsel for the applicant, said on behalf of the applicant that they concur with the staff report. They believe the application meets all of the applicable criteria in the LUC. This represents a very minor deviation from what was previously approved — about 250 square feet out of a 10,000 square foot building. She said they do have their team present available to answer any questions. Staff had no comment relative to what the applicant just stated. Public Input Eric Sutherland said he regrets this has delayed the other proceedings this evening. He does believe he was correct that he'd already created a person of interest in this matter by speaking to it on the consent agenda. If you wish to procedurally correct this situation in the future, he asked that the chair ask that people be asked to pull items of the consent agenda before the citizen participation portion of the meeting so they do not take up the public's time by speaking to items on the consent agenda. And then speaking to them again as he is now. Sutherland said he appreciates Deputy City Attorney's reference to LUC that speaks to relevancy. There are many times he would pray for a little more attention to the LUC because he thinks there have been times in the past when it's been abused --- not so much by the public but by city staff or developers. He thinks they manipulate the process to the detriment of the public. He thinks we have a pretty good code Planning & Zoning Board November 21, 2013 Page 2 this community. He thinks we're doing a lousy job. He said he's not arguing against the concept, he's arguing against the execution of it. He thinks the city needs the 'analog' of the board overseeing how we're 'doling out' these millions of dollars in public subsidies. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman said since Mr. Sutherland has expressed a wish that he be given a party in interest status for the purpose of filing an appeal, we ought to take this item off the consent agenda He said the board can either take note of what he's already said or if you want to make a more pure process, to ask him to repeat his comments. Consent Agenda (Both items were eventually moved to Discussion) 1. Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot SPAR, # SPA130004 2. Foothills Redevelopment Phase 1, Consolidated Major Amendment & Final Plan, #FDP130040 Chair Smith asked if staff or any member of the audience or board wished to pull the item remaining on the Consent Agenda. No one did. Member Hart made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consisted of Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot Site Plan Advisory Review. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Member Schneider said he had questions and he'd like to pull the item from consent He wondered how we sell a part of a parcel and referenced materials in the read before packet regarding selling a part of the parcel. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said the LUC allows for non -regulated land transfers. Non -regulated land transfers allow anyone to sell any parcel of land no matter the size. As a home rule city we have legislation that you can sell parcels without going through the subdivision process. Eckman said you can't develop, however, unless it's platted as a subdivision. Member Hart withdrew his motion. Discussion Agenda: 1. Front Range Community College Southwest Parking Lot SPAR, # SPA130004 2. Foothills Redevelopment Phase 1, Consolidated Major Amendment & Final Plan, #FDP130040 3. Redtail Pond Permanent Supportive Housing Project Development Plan, # PDP130030 Chair Smith asked if the order items were pulled indicated the order of review. Eckman said he thought it might follow the order of the agenda but it's up to the chair to decide. Chair Smith asked for a show of hands of who was present to speak to either of the items. There were none except for Mr. Sutherland for Item 2 — Foothills Redevelopment. Eckman said there is a code provision in Section 2.2.7 that states the decision maker (the chair) may exclude testimony or evidence that it finds to be irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious. Eckman said the chair needs to decide if you're hearing testimony that is relevant to the LUC criteria for which you measure a development application. If you choose to, you may exclude testimony that is not relevant. Member Kirkpatrick asked if the chair thought it would be prudent to move the item that everyone was here to discuss to the first item. Chair Smith indicated no. He said he thinks we might be able to complete the first two items quickly. Member Carpenter said because no one appears to be here to speak to the Front Range Community College SPAR, do we need to have an applicant presentation or Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hart, Hatfield, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Schneider Member Heinz arrived late. Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Gloss, Lorson, Levingston, Holland, Barnes, Virata, Siegmund, and Sanchez -Sprague Agenda Review CDNS Director Kadrich reviewed the agenda. Chair Smith provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following processes: • Citizen Participation is an opportunity for citizens to address the board on non -agenda related items. • Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. They are approved collectively at the beginning of the meeting unless a board member, staff or audience member requests an item is pulled and moved to the discussion agenda. • Discussion agenda items will include an applicant presentation, a staff presentation, and public comment. • At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and sign -in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position. He encouraged speakers to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion. • Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment. • The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken. • He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. The board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon. Citizen participation: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, said he's going to take a leap of faith and speak to an item on the Consent Agenda to elevate his legal status to that of a person of interest should he wish to appeal. He said he objects to Item 2, the Foothills Redevelopment Consolidated Maior Amendment & Final Plan on the basis of the LUC chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4. The other thing he'd like to talk about is the fact that there is an increasing nexus between public financing of private development and the private development process itself. He said the board has the responsibility of reviewing development but increasingly there is this other component that is outside the board's purview. It does not have the benefit from the same review. He said there is no citizen review of how we subsidize private development using public funds in